Request for Information on the Coast Guard Implementation of a Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning Criteria Program, 84157-84161 [2023-26533]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, NFEs are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive Federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10 million for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/ project. Mandatory Disclosure Requirements As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, the IHS must require an NFE or an applicant for a Federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. All applicants and recipients must disclose in writing, in a timely manner, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. 45 CFR 75.113. Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Marsha Brookins, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, (Include ‘‘Mandatory Grant Disclosures’’ in subject line), Office: (301) 443–5204, Fax: (301) 594–0899, Email: DGM@ihs.gov. AND U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW, Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL: https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/ report-fraud/, (Include ‘‘Mandatory Grant Disclosures’’ in subject line), Fax: (202) 205–0604 (Include ‘‘Mandatory Grant Disclosures’’ in subject line) or Email: MandatoryGranteeDisclosures@ oig.hhs.gov. Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (see 2 CFR part 180 and 2 CFR part 376). VII. Agency Contacts 1. Questions on the program matters may be directed to: Tamara D. James, Ph.D., Division of Behavioral Health, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Dec 01, 2023 Jkt 262001 Mail Stop: 8N10, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301–443– 1872, Email: tamara.james@ihs.gov. 2. Questions on awards management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Email: DGM@ihs.gov. 3. For technical assistance with Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov help desk at (800) 518–4726, or by email at support@grants.gov. 4. For technical assistance with GrantSolutions, please contact the GrantSolutions help desk at (866) 577– 0771, or by email at help@ grantsolutions.gov. VIII. Other Information The Public Health Service strongly encourages all grant, cooperative agreement, and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103– 227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people. Roselyn Tso, Director, Indian Health Service. 84157 Small Research Grants for Data Analysis, Exploratory/Developmental Research, Clinical Trials Readiness, Phased Innovation, and Clinical Research Course Development in Down Syndrome for the INCLUDE Project 2nd Review. Date: December 11, 2023. Time: 10:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications. Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting). Contact Person: Bukhtiar H Shah, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4120, MSC 7802, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806– 7314, shahb@csr.nih.gov. This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle. (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844, 93.846–93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: November 29, 2023. Victoria E. Townsend, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. [FR Doc. 2023–26551 Filed 12–1–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [FR Doc. 2023–26504 Filed 12–1–23; 8:45 am] Coast Guard BILLING CODE 4166–14–P [Docket No. USCG–2023–0824] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Request for Information on the Coast Guard Implementation of a Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning Criteria Program National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting. The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Coast Guard, DHS. Request for information. AGENCY: ACTION: The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 mandated the Coast Guard create planning criteria for vessel response plans (VRPs) distinct to the Western Alaska and Prince William Sound Captain of the Port zones. These criteria must include minimum response times, improvements to wildlife response, and consideration of prevention and mitigation measures. The Coast Guard seeks input from the public to establish these VRP planning criteria. The information will assist the Coast Guard in potentially developing a regulatory proposal to support the mandate. SUMMARY: Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 4, 2024. DATES: E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 84158 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public Participation and Request for Comments’’ portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments. post to www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have provided. For more information about privacy and submissions to the docket in response to this document, see the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). For information about this document, call or email Lieutenant Commander Adriana Gaenzle, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1226, email Adriana.J.Gaenzle@uscg.mil. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: II. Abbreviations FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 I. Public Participation and Comments The U.S. Coast Guard views public participation as essential to understanding vessel oil spill response planning and capabilities in remote areas of Alaska. The Coast Guard will consider all information and material received during the comment period. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this request for information, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. Methods for submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to www.regulations.gov, type USCG– 2023–0824 in the search box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material cannot be submitted using www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Public comments will be posted in our online docket at www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website’s instructions, provided on its Frequently Asked Questions page. We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of this request for information. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. The Coast Guard will not issue a separate response to the comments received but will carefully consider each submission. The Coast Guard may also introduce regulatory changes and update policy related to this topic. If the Coast Guard were to undertake any regulatory or policy changes as a result of comments received, that change would be announced separately. Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Dec 01, 2023 Jkt 262001 APC Alternative Planning Criteria CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGAA 2022 Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 CG–543 Coast Guard Office of Vessel Activities CG–MER Coast Guard Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy COTP Captain of the Port D17 Coast Guard Seventeenth District GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office MORPAG Maritime Oil-spill Response Plan Advisory Group MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin NPC National Planning Criteria NSFCC National Strike Force Coordination Center NTV Nontank Vessel NTV final rule Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Response Plan Requirements final rule OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990 OSRO Oil Spill Removal Organization RFI Request for information VRP Vessel response plan III. Purpose The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing this request for information (RFI) to collect opinions, ideas, recommendations, and concerns related to the Coast Guard’s mandate to create planning criteria for vessel response plans (VRPs) distinct to the Western Alaska and Prince William Sound Captain of the Port (COTP) zones. The Coast Guard is tasked with developing planning criteria suitable for operating areas where response capability is currently inadequate. The Coast Guard will use the public comments received in response to this RFI to better understand industry limitations, environmental concerns, and tribal concerns. IV. Background Under title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections 155.1015 and 155.5015, VRPs are required to cover all navigable waters of the United States in which a vessel operates. Several areas under U.S. jurisdiction do not have sufficient resources to meet the national planning criteria (NPC) prescribed under 33 CFR part 155. In remote areas, where adequate response resources are not available, or the available commercial resources do not meet the required planning criteria for where the vessels are operating, a vessel PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 owner or operator may request that the Coast Guard accept an alternative planning criteria (APC). In August 2009, the Coast Guard Office of Vessel Activities (CG–543) published CG–543 Policy Letter 09–02,1 ‘‘Industry Guidelines for Requesting Alternative Planning Criteria Approval, One Time Waivers and Interim Operating Authorization,’’ to provide guidance to the maritime industry in applying for an APC pursuant to 33 CFR.1065(f). On September 30, 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard published the Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Response Plan Requirements final rule (hereafter the ‘‘NTV final rule’’) (78 FR 60124), requiring nontank vessels (NTVs) over 400 gross tons to submit VRPs, which made the NCP in 33 CFR part 155 applicable to thousands of additional vessels across the United States, including geographic areas with limited commercially available response resources. Over time, it became apparent that additional guidance would be useful in addressing compliance issues that had developed from the promulgation of the NTV final rule. In 2015, Coast Guard Seventeenth District (D17) published a Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) 2 that provided guidance for APC submissions and expectations within the Western Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Southeast Alaska COTP zones, with a focus on NTV traffic. D17 received a multitude of comments from various sectors of the maritime industry on the MSIB. After reviewing the comments, the Coast Guard chose to update the national APC guidance rather than singularly focusing on APC guidelines specific to Alaska. On October 12, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy (CG–MER) issued CG– MER Policy Letter 01–17, ‘‘Alternative Planning Criteria National Guidelines for Vessel Response Plans’’ to provide consistent guidelines nationally for evaluating proposed APCs, applicable to tank and NTVs. That policy letter was canceled with the publication, on March 15, 2023, of CG–MER Policy Letter 01– 17, Change 1,3 ‘‘Change 1 to Alternative 1 https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/ DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/ Policy%20Letters/2009/CG-543_pol09-02.pdf (last accessed November 14, 2023). 2 https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/ DCO%20Documents/5p/MSIB/2015/008_15_8-262015.pdf (last accessed November 14, 2023). 3 https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/ Attachments/2781/CG-MER%20Policy%20 Letter%2001-17%20Change%201%20%Mar%202023%20(Signed).pdf (last accessed November 15, 2023). E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices Planning Criteria National Guidelines for Vessel Response Plans’’ to reduce the administrative burden on industry and clarify the APC submission process. From 2019–2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted an audit to review the VRP program. The GAO provided CG– MER with recommendations, including ensuring that resources identified in a VRP are available to respond, and retaining Coast Guard personnel with local knowledge when evaluating APCs. In April of 2020, the U.S. Coast Guard established the Maritime Oil-spill Response Planning Advisory Group (MORPAG) to analyze processes internal to Coast Guard management of VRPs and APCs, and that final report was submitted to CG–MER in March 2023. In September 2020, the GAO issued their final report analyzing the Coast Guard’s processes for reviewing, evaluating, and approving VRPs. That audit report, ‘‘Improved Analysis of Vessel Response Plan Use Could Help Mitigate Marine Pollution Risk,’’ GAO– 20–554, can be found online at https:// www.gao.gov/assets/720/710034.pdf. The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 (CGAA 2022),4 passed in December of 2022 (Public Law 117–263), includes a section designed to address the specific needs of Western Alaska. Section 11309 mandates the Coast Guard create a Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning Criteria Program to include vessel oil spill planning criteria specific to Western Alaska. On March 30, 2023, the Coast Guard published an RFI seeking public input on the MORPAG recommendations (88 FR 19159) 5 to improve the VRP program and policies and enhance the Coast Guard’s mission in marine environmental protection from oil spills. In April 2023, CG–MER established the Marine Environmental Response Criteria Action Team (MERCAT) to analyze, develop, and implement Section 11309 of the CGAA 2022, Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning Criteria, as well as reconcile MORPAG recommendations into the VRP program, where appropriate. As outlined in the CGAA 2022, Western Alaska Oil Spill planning criteria should include: (1) Mechanical oil spill response resources that are required to be located 4 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT117hrpt282/html/CRPT-117hrpt282.htm (last accessed November 14, 2023). 5 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 2023/03/30/2023-06611/request-for-information-oncoast-guard-vessel-response-plan-and-maritime-oilspill-response-plan. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Dec 01, 2023 Jkt 262001 within any part of the area of responsibility of the Western Alaska COTP zone or the Prince William Sound COTP zone for where it has been determined that NPCs are inappropriate for a vessel operating in that area. (2) Response times for mobilization of oil spill response resources and arrival on the scene of a worst-case discharge or substantial threat of such a discharge. (3) Pre-identified vessels for oil spill response that are capable of operating in the ocean environment. (4) Ensuring the availability of at least one Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) that is classified by the Coast Guard and that: (a) Can respond in all operating environments in that area. (b) Controls dedicated and nondedicated oil spill response resources through ownership, contracts, agreements, or other approved means, sufficient— (i) To mobilize and sustain a response to a worst-case discharge of oil and (ii) To contain, recover, and temporarily store discharged oil. (c) Has pre-positioned oil spill response resources in strategic locations throughout the area in a manner that ensures the ability to support response personnel, marine operations, air cargo, or other related logistics infrastructure. (d) Has temporary storage capability using both dedicated and non-dedicated assets located in the area. (e) Has non-mechanical oil spill response resources capable of responding to a discharge of persistent oil and a discharge of nonpersistent oil, whether the discharged oil was carried by a vessel as fuel or cargo; and (f) Has wildlife response resources for primary, secondary, and tertiary responses to support carcass collection, sampling, deterrence, rescue, and rehabilitation of birds, sea turtles, marine mammals, fishery resources, and other wildlife. (5) With respect to tank barges carrying non-persistent oil in bulk as cargo, oil spill response resources that are required to be carried on board. (6) Specifying a minimum length of time that approval of a VRP using Western Alaska planning criteria is valid. (7) Managing wildlife protection and rehabilitation, including identified wildlife protection and rehabilitation resources in the area. Additional considerations for Western Alaska Oil Spill planning criteria may include: (1) Vessel routing measures consistent with international routing measure deviation protocols. (2) Maintenance of real-time continuous vessel tracking, monitoring, PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 84159 and engagement protocols with the ability to detect and address vessel operation anomalies. (3) Creation of subregions where response needs and capabilities may require different planning criteria. V. Request for Information The Coast Guard requests relevant comments and information from the public regarding the mandate to create planning criteria unique for VRPs in the Western Alaska COTP zone. We will use feedback provided to develop proposed planning criteria for public comment. We ask that you also keep in mind the Coast Guard’s mission to ensure a safe, secure, and resilient marine transportation system that facilitates commerce and protects national security interests. Commenters should feel free to answer as many questions as they would like, but also provide specificity, detail, and the logic behind any finding or numerical estimates. Listed below are questions to guide your responses. We want and encourage your feedback. (1) Should NPC remain the standard where response capability is sufficient to support a vessels’ planning requirements? (2) What criteria should the Coast Guard use to determine realistic response times for resources, while ensuring an effective response in Western Alaska? (3) With the potential growth in maritime shipping in the arctic environment, how can the planning criteria be written to ensure response capability increases with the growth and additional risk presented by vessels operating in Western Alaska? (4) OSRO classification is not determined based on vessels’ response requirements, and participation in the OSRO classification program is voluntary. Because of this, VRP compliance cannot be determined through OSRO classification. Should the OSRO classification program be changed so that it directly affects VRP compliance determination? (5) Should the Coast Guard establish a unique classification scheme for OSROs in Alaska based on the proposed Western Alaska Planning Criteria? (6) Since NPC is the current planning standard, should the Coast Guard create subregions in Western Alaska to address different planning criteria based on operating environment, traffic patterns, and response capability to ensure NPC remains the standard where it is achievable? (7) Should the Coast Guard establish subregions to proactively plan for expected vessel traffic increases in E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 84160 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices certain areas? If so, how should we do this? (8) How could planning criteria be written for a vessel’s destination instead of requiring planning for multiple subregions on a vessel’s route? (9) Some resources that response providers rely on are not owned or controlled by the provider. Some may be used for other purposes or may be resources of opportunity and not always be immediately available to respond. Should regulations require periodic audits of a providers’ response resources to ensure the resources identified in a VRP are available and capable of responding within the required time? (10) How should the criteria be written to ensure an OSRO has wildlife response resources? What types of wildlife response resources would be appropriate, and how would the Coast Guard verify these? (11) How should the Coast Guard ensure that all stakeholders’ and affected parties’ concerns have been heard or received? What recommendations do you have to maximize outreach and understanding of any new planning standard? (12) APC is intended to minimize the impact to maritime commerce where response capabilities in remote areas are insufficient for VRP compliance. In situations where a vessel needs to operate in a remote area and cannot comply with Western Alaska Planning Criteria, should APC be an option for VRP approval, or should the Coast Guard deny a vessel from operating there? Please describe any costs you may incur because of this change. (13) If the Coast Guard needs to establish one set of Western Alaska Planning Criteria for all areas of the Western Alaska and Prince William Sound COTP zones where NPC cannot be met, given the current variation in response capabilities across these areas, how could the Coast Guard design these planning criteria to ensure that greater response capability is maintained in those areas where it is needed? (14) Should the criteria require response gear on all tank barges or only tank barges carrying non-persistent oil? (15) As a tank or NTV owner or operator who owns or operates vessel(s) that carry the types of oil defined in 33 CFR part 155, how would the adoption of the Western Alaska (Western Alaska COTP zone in addition to the Prince William Sound COTP zone) oil spill planning criteria, or the adoption of subregions for planning purposes, impact your business? Please describe in detail the positive (beneficial) or negative (costs) economic impacts this would have on your business. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Dec 01, 2023 Jkt 262001 (16) What would you need to do to meet the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion that you are not already doing under the national planning criteria in 33 CFR part 155? For example, would you need to hire new employees, implement additional training, drills, and exercises, purchase new equipment, and keep records (time and paperwork costs) to meet the oil spill planning criteria described in the 2022 Coast Guard Authorization Act? For questions 17–22, please identify if the response is specific to tank, NTV, or both. (17) If you are a tank or NTV vessel owner, and taking into consideration the current regulations for VRPs for tank and NTV vessels in 33 CFR part 155, what would you specifically need to do to your current VRP to comply with the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion, which includes the surrounding areas, as described in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022? What additional costs would be incurred beyond the existing VRP regulations or under the national planning criteria in 33 CFR part 155? (18) If you are a small entity (small business, small organization, or small governmental jurisdiction) that owns tank or NTV vessels, how would the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas impact your business? Please be specific and describe any positive (beneficial) or negative (costs) impacts this would have on your business or organization. (19) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, would adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion affect your insurance costs and liability coverage? If so, please be specific and describe any economic impacts this may have. (20) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, if the planning criteria required in a subregion were more stringent than that of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria, what would be the economic impact (costs and benefits, if any) of this difference on your business? Please be specific and describe in detail the nature of this difference on your business. (21) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, would you need to modify your current response plan, through contract or other means, to ensure the availability of an OSRO to respond to a shoreline oil spill in the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska subregion, as PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 described in the CGAA 2022? Please be specific in your response and state why you believe this may or may not be necessary. (22) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, what would it cost to develop and submit a new VRP that contains APC as defined in 33 CFR sections155.1065 and 155.5067 for the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or planning criteria for a Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas? (23) If you are a Tribal government, how would the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas impact your government? Please describe in detail the positive (beneficial) or negative economic and environmental impacts (costs) this would have on your government. (24) If you are an OSRO, how would the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion affect your capability to respond to an oil spill in these areas or subregion? What capital costs would you incur as an OSRO to meet the planning criteria in these areas or subregion as described in the CGAA 2022? Please include the time it would take for additional recordkeeping, if applicable, and the costs associated with any paperwork. (25) As an OSRO, do you currently have adequate resources (salvage and firefighting equipment, lightering, and so on) and capabilities to respond to an oil spill in the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska subregion as described in the CGAA 2022? With your current resources and capabilities, would you be able to respond to an average most probable discharge, a maximum most probable discharge, or a worst-case discharge of oil, as defined in 33 CFR part 155, in these areas? If not, please describe in detail what resources you would need to obtain or capabilities you would need to develop to respond to an oil spill in these areas, and the costs associated with these changes. (26) As an OSRO, would you be able to respond to a discharge of oil with the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas in the response times given in 33 CFR part 155? If not, please describe in detail why these response times would not be achievable in these areas, and what would be the appropriate response times you think would be achievable in these areas. Would pre-positioning of oil spill response resources be necessary for the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska subregion as described in the E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 231 / Monday, December 4, 2023 / Notices CGAA 2022? What would be the additional costs to your business/ organization for changes in the response times in these areas? (27) Please specify, as a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, an OSRO, or any other party that may be affected by the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or a Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas, please describe in detail any other economic impacts, not stated previously, that this change may have on your business beyond the current requirements listed in 33 CFR part 1. (28) Are there any other positive or negative environmental impacts from this potential action? If so, please provide detail as to how and what would be impacted. To the degree possible, please provide the data, impact assessments, and other pertinent background information necessary to understand and reproduce your results. Dated: November 28, 2023. D.S. Tulis, Director, Emergency Management, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. 2023–26533 Filed 12–1–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket ID: FEMA- 2023–0014; OMB No. 1660–NW164] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; an Investigation of the Effect of Disaster Response and Recovery on Perceived Stress and Emotional Trauma Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: 60-Day notice of new collection and request for comments. AGENCY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an Investigation of the Effect of Disaster Response and Recovery on Perceived Stress and Emotional Trauma. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the effect of disasters on the mental health of emergency managers at local, State, and Federal levels. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:20 Dec 01, 2023 Jkt 262001 A study to investigate the effect of disaster response and recovery on emergency managers was requested by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116–260). 29 CFR part 1960, entitled ‘‘Basic Program Elements for Federal Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs and Related Matters’’, contains special provisions to assure safe and healthful working conditions for Federal employees; requiring the head of each Federal Agency to maintain an effective and comprehensive occupational safety and health program consistent with section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91– 596) (OSHA Act). Furthermore, 5 U.S.C. 7902 requires the head of each agency to develop and support organized safety promotion to reduce accidents and injuries to its employees, encourage safe practices, and eliminate hazards and risks. Under 5 U.S.C. 7902(e), Agencies must also keep a record of injuries and accidents. This program was established to improve the mental health of FEMA’s, as well as State and local, emergency managers in response to the effects of stress caused by disasters. This data collection is needed to comply with the OSHA Act, 5 U.S.C. 7902 requiring the monitoring, reporting, and mitigation of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Emergency Management Agency SUMMARY: Comments must be submitted on or before February 2, 2024. ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA–2023–0014. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Corley, Supervisory Psychologist, FEMA Mental Health, at fema-mentalhealth@fema.dhs.gov or (202) 880–7506. You may contact the Information Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address: FEMAInformation-Collections-Management@ fema.dhs.gov. DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 84161 workplace injuries, and with the request from Congress to undertake this survey. Collection of Information Title: An Investigation of the Effect of Disaster Response and Recovery on Perceived Stress and Emotional Trauma. Type of Information Collection: New information collection. OMB Number: 1660–NW164. FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF–119– FY–23–100, FEMA Congressional Mental Health Emergency Manager Wellness Study Survey. Abstract: This information collection supports a study to investigate the effect of disaster response and recovery on emergency managers that was requested by Congress in 2022. This is a voluntary survey that will be collected electronically with approximately 38 questions pertaining to the individuals’ experience and demographics, as well as their perceptions of emotional trauma and stress symptoms while supporting a disaster response or recovery. Prior to seeing these questions, participants will see an informed consent screen that outlines the nature of the study, risks, benefits, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) information. Participants may choose to end the survey at any time without questions being asked. Participants are given mental health resources to support them in the event of emotional triggering. Affected Public: State, local, and Tribal governments. Estimated Number of Respondents: 378. Estimated Number of Responses: 378. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 189. Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $11,712. Estimated Respondents’ Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0. Estimated Respondents’ Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0. Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $306,752. Comments Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those E:\FR\FM\04DEN1.SGM 04DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84157-84161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26533]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0824]


Request for Information on the Coast Guard Implementation of a 
Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning Criteria Program

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 mandated 
the Coast Guard create planning criteria for vessel response plans 
(VRPs) distinct to the Western Alaska and Prince William Sound Captain 
of the Port zones. These criteria must include minimum response times, 
improvements to wildlife response, and consideration of prevention and 
mitigation measures. The Coast Guard seeks input from the public to 
establish these VRP planning criteria. The information will assist the 
Coast Guard in potentially developing a regulatory proposal to support 
the mandate.

DATES: Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before March 
4, 2024.

[[Page 84158]]


ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using the Federal Decision-Making 
Portal at www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and 
Request for Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
for further instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document, 
call or email Lieutenant Commander Adriana Gaenzle, U.S. Coast Guard; 
telephone 202-372-1226, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Comments

    The U.S. Coast Guard views public participation as essential to 
understanding vessel oil spill response planning and capabilities in 
remote areas of Alaska. The Coast Guard will consider all information 
and material received during the comment period. If you submit a 
comment, please include the docket number for this request for 
information, indicate the specific section of this document to which 
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or 
recommendation.
    Methods for submitting comments. We encourage you to submit 
comments through the Federal Decision-Making Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0824 in the search box, and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this 
document in the Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on 
the Comment option. If your material cannot be submitted using 
www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
    Public comments will be posted in our online docket at 
www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's 
instructions, provided on its Frequently Asked Questions page. We 
review all comments received, but we will only post comments that 
address the topic of this request for information. We may choose not to 
post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    The Coast Guard will not issue a separate response to the comments 
received but will carefully consider each submission. The Coast Guard 
may also introduce regulatory changes and update policy related to this 
topic. If the Coast Guard were to undertake any regulatory or policy 
changes as a result of comments received, that change would be 
announced separately.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we 
post to www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you 
have provided. For more information about privacy and submissions to 
the docket in response to this document, see the Department of Homeland 
Security's (DHS) eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 
March 11, 2020).

II. Abbreviations

APC Alternative Planning Criteria
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGAA 2022 Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022
CG-543 Coast Guard Office of Vessel Activities
CG-MER Coast Guard Office of Marine Environmental Response Policy
COTP Captain of the Port
D17 Coast Guard Seventeenth District
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
MORPAG Maritime Oil-spill Response Plan Advisory Group
MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin
NPC National Planning Criteria
NSFCC National Strike Force Coordination Center
NTV Nontank Vessel
NTV final rule Nontank Vessel Response Plans and Other Response Plan 
Requirements final rule
OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990
OSRO Oil Spill Removal Organization
RFI Request for information
VRP Vessel response plan

III. Purpose

    The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing this request for information (RFI) 
to collect opinions, ideas, recommendations, and concerns related to 
the Coast Guard's mandate to create planning criteria for vessel 
response plans (VRPs) distinct to the Western Alaska and Prince William 
Sound Captain of the Port (COTP) zones. The Coast Guard is tasked with 
developing planning criteria suitable for operating areas where 
response capability is currently inadequate.
    The Coast Guard will use the public comments received in response 
to this RFI to better understand industry limitations, environmental 
concerns, and tribal concerns.

IV. Background

    Under title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) sections 
155.1015 and 155.5015, VRPs are required to cover all navigable waters 
of the United States in which a vessel operates. Several areas under 
U.S. jurisdiction do not have sufficient resources to meet the national 
planning criteria (NPC) prescribed under 33 CFR part 155. In remote 
areas, where adequate response resources are not available, or the 
available commercial resources do not meet the required planning 
criteria for where the vessels are operating, a vessel owner or 
operator may request that the Coast Guard accept an alternative 
planning criteria (APC).
    In August 2009, the Coast Guard Office of Vessel Activities (CG-
543) published CG-543 Policy Letter 09-02,\1\ ``Industry Guidelines for 
Requesting Alternative Planning Criteria Approval, One Time Waivers and 
Interim Operating Authorization,'' to provide guidance to the maritime 
industry in applying for an APC pursuant to 33 CFR.1065(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/Policy%20Letters/2009/CG-543_pol09-02.pdf (last accessed 
November 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard published the Nontank 
Vessel Response Plans and Other Response Plan Requirements final rule 
(hereafter the ``NTV final rule'') (78 FR 60124), requiring nontank 
vessels (NTVs) over 400 gross tons to submit VRPs, which made the NCP 
in 33 CFR part 155 applicable to thousands of additional vessels across 
the United States, including geographic areas with limited commercially 
available response resources. Over time, it became apparent that 
additional guidance would be useful in addressing compliance issues 
that had developed from the promulgation of the NTV final rule.
    In 2015, Coast Guard Seventeenth District (D17) published a Marine 
Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB) \2\ that provided guidance for APC 
submissions and expectations within the Western Alaska, Prince William 
Sound, and Southeast Alaska COTP zones, with a focus on NTV traffic. 
D17 received a multitude of comments from various sectors of the 
maritime industry on the MSIB. After reviewing the comments, the Coast 
Guard chose to update the national APC guidance rather than singularly 
focusing on APC guidelines specific to Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/MSIB/2015/008_15_8-26-2015.pdf (last accessed November 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 12, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Marine 
Environmental Response Policy (CG-MER) issued CG-MER Policy Letter 01-
17, ``Alternative Planning Criteria National Guidelines for Vessel 
Response Plans'' to provide consistent guidelines nationally for 
evaluating proposed APCs, applicable to tank and NTVs. That policy 
letter was canceled with the publication, on March 15, 2023, of CG-MER 
Policy Letter 01-17, Change 1,\3\ ``Change 1 to Alternative

[[Page 84159]]

Planning Criteria National Guidelines for Vessel Response Plans'' to 
reduce the administrative burden on industry and clarify the APC 
submission process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://homeport.uscg.mil/Lists/Content/Attachments/2781/CG-MER%20Policy%20Letter%2001-17%20Change%201%20-%Mar%202023%20(Signed).pdf (last accessed November 15, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2019-2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
conducted an audit to review the VRP program. The GAO provided CG-MER 
with recommendations, including ensuring that resources identified in a 
VRP are available to respond, and retaining Coast Guard personnel with 
local knowledge when evaluating APCs. In April of 2020, the U.S. Coast 
Guard established the Maritime Oil-spill Response Planning Advisory 
Group (MORPAG) to analyze processes internal to Coast Guard management 
of VRPs and APCs, and that final report was submitted to CG-MER in 
March 2023.
    In September 2020, the GAO issued their final report analyzing the 
Coast Guard's processes for reviewing, evaluating, and approving VRPs. 
That audit report, ``Improved Analysis of Vessel Response Plan Use 
Could Help Mitigate Marine Pollution Risk,'' GAO-20-554, can be found 
online at https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/710034.pdf.
    The Don Young Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2022 (CGAA 2022),\4\ 
passed in December of 2022 (Public Law 117-263), includes a section 
designed to address the specific needs of Western Alaska. Section 11309 
mandates the Coast Guard create a Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning 
Criteria Program to include vessel oil spill planning criteria specific 
to Western Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-117hrpt282/html/CRPT-117hrpt282.htm (last accessed November 14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 2023, the Coast Guard published an RFI seeking public 
input on the MORPAG recommendations (88 FR 19159) \5\ to improve the 
VRP program and policies and enhance the Coast Guard's mission in 
marine environmental protection from oil spills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/30/2023-06611/request-for-information-on-coast-guard-vessel-response-plan-and-maritime-oil-spill-response-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April 2023, CG-MER established the Marine Environmental Response 
Criteria Action Team (MERCAT) to analyze, develop, and implement 
Section 11309 of the CGAA 2022, Western Alaska Oil Spill Planning 
Criteria, as well as reconcile MORPAG recommendations into the VRP 
program, where appropriate. As outlined in the CGAA 2022, Western 
Alaska Oil Spill planning criteria should include:
    (1) Mechanical oil spill response resources that are required to be 
located within any part of the area of responsibility of the Western 
Alaska COTP zone or the Prince William Sound COTP zone for where it has 
been determined that NPCs are inappropriate for a vessel operating in 
that area.
    (2) Response times for mobilization of oil spill response resources 
and arrival on the scene of a worst-case discharge or substantial 
threat of such a discharge.
    (3) Pre-identified vessels for oil spill response that are capable 
of operating in the ocean environment.
    (4) Ensuring the availability of at least one Oil Spill Removal 
Organization (OSRO) that is classified by the Coast Guard and that:
    (a) Can respond in all operating environments in that area.
    (b) Controls dedicated and nondedicated oil spill response 
resources through ownership, contracts, agreements, or other approved 
means, sufficient--
    (i) To mobilize and sustain a response to a worst-case discharge of 
oil and
    (ii) To contain, recover, and temporarily store discharged oil.
    (c) Has pre-positioned oil spill response resources in strategic 
locations throughout the area in a manner that ensures the ability to 
support response personnel, marine operations, air cargo, or other 
related logistics infrastructure.
    (d) Has temporary storage capability using both dedicated and non-
dedicated assets located in the area.
    (e) Has non-mechanical oil spill response resources capable of 
responding to a discharge of persistent oil and a discharge of 
nonpersistent oil, whether the discharged oil was carried by a vessel 
as fuel or cargo; and
    (f) Has wildlife response resources for primary, secondary, and 
tertiary responses to support carcass collection, sampling, deterrence, 
rescue, and rehabilitation of birds, sea turtles, marine mammals, 
fishery resources, and other wildlife.
    (5) With respect to tank barges carrying non-persistent oil in bulk 
as cargo, oil spill response resources that are required to be carried 
on board.
    (6) Specifying a minimum length of time that approval of a VRP 
using Western Alaska planning criteria is valid.
    (7) Managing wildlife protection and rehabilitation, including 
identified wildlife protection and rehabilitation resources in the 
area.
    Additional considerations for Western Alaska Oil Spill planning 
criteria may include:
    (1) Vessel routing measures consistent with international routing 
measure deviation protocols.
    (2) Maintenance of real-time continuous vessel tracking, 
monitoring, and engagement protocols with the ability to detect and 
address vessel operation anomalies.
    (3) Creation of subregions where response needs and capabilities 
may require different planning criteria.

V. Request for Information

    The Coast Guard requests relevant comments and information from the 
public regarding the mandate to create planning criteria unique for 
VRPs in the Western Alaska COTP zone. We will use feedback provided to 
develop proposed planning criteria for public comment. We ask that you 
also keep in mind the Coast Guard's mission to ensure a safe, secure, 
and resilient marine transportation system that facilitates commerce 
and protects national security interests. Commenters should feel free 
to answer as many questions as they would like, but also provide 
specificity, detail, and the logic behind any finding or numerical 
estimates. Listed below are questions to guide your responses. We want 
and encourage your feedback.
    (1) Should NPC remain the standard where response capability is 
sufficient to support a vessels' planning requirements?
    (2) What criteria should the Coast Guard use to determine realistic 
response times for resources, while ensuring an effective response in 
Western Alaska?
    (3) With the potential growth in maritime shipping in the arctic 
environment, how can the planning criteria be written to ensure 
response capability increases with the growth and additional risk 
presented by vessels operating in Western Alaska?
    (4) OSRO classification is not determined based on vessels' 
response requirements, and participation in the OSRO classification 
program is voluntary. Because of this, VRP compliance cannot be 
determined through OSRO classification. Should the OSRO classification 
program be changed so that it directly affects VRP compliance 
determination?
    (5) Should the Coast Guard establish a unique classification scheme 
for OSROs in Alaska based on the proposed Western Alaska Planning 
Criteria?
    (6) Since NPC is the current planning standard, should the Coast 
Guard create subregions in Western Alaska to address different planning 
criteria based on operating environment, traffic patterns, and response 
capability to ensure NPC remains the standard where it is achievable?
    (7) Should the Coast Guard establish subregions to proactively plan 
for expected vessel traffic increases in

[[Page 84160]]

certain areas? If so, how should we do this?
    (8) How could planning criteria be written for a vessel's 
destination instead of requiring planning for multiple subregions on a 
vessel's route?
    (9) Some resources that response providers rely on are not owned or 
controlled by the provider. Some may be used for other purposes or may 
be resources of opportunity and not always be immediately available to 
respond. Should regulations require periodic audits of a providers' 
response resources to ensure the resources identified in a VRP are 
available and capable of responding within the required time?
    (10) How should the criteria be written to ensure an OSRO has 
wildlife response resources? What types of wildlife response resources 
would be appropriate, and how would the Coast Guard verify these?
    (11) How should the Coast Guard ensure that all stakeholders' and 
affected parties' concerns have been heard or received? What 
recommendations do you have to maximize outreach and understanding of 
any new planning standard?
    (12) APC is intended to minimize the impact to maritime commerce 
where response capabilities in remote areas are insufficient for VRP 
compliance. In situations where a vessel needs to operate in a remote 
area and cannot comply with Western Alaska Planning Criteria, should 
APC be an option for VRP approval, or should the Coast Guard deny a 
vessel from operating there? Please describe any costs you may incur 
because of this change.
    (13) If the Coast Guard needs to establish one set of Western 
Alaska Planning Criteria for all areas of the Western Alaska and Prince 
William Sound COTP zones where NPC cannot be met, given the current 
variation in response capabilities across these areas, how could the 
Coast Guard design these planning criteria to ensure that greater 
response capability is maintained in those areas where it is needed?
    (14) Should the criteria require response gear on all tank barges 
or only tank barges carrying non-persistent oil?
    (15) As a tank or NTV owner or operator who owns or operates 
vessel(s) that carry the types of oil defined in 33 CFR part 155, how 
would the adoption of the Western Alaska (Western Alaska COTP zone in 
addition to the Prince William Sound COTP zone) oil spill planning 
criteria, or the adoption of subregions for planning purposes, impact 
your business? Please describe in detail the positive (beneficial) or 
negative (costs) economic impacts this would have on your business.
    (16) What would you need to do to meet the Western Alaska oil spill 
planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion that 
you are not already doing under the national planning criteria in 33 
CFR part 155? For example, would you need to hire new employees, 
implement additional training, drills, and exercises, purchase new 
equipment, and keep records (time and paperwork costs) to meet the oil 
spill planning criteria described in the 2022 Coast Guard Authorization 
Act?
    For questions 17-22, please identify if the response is specific to 
tank, NTV, or both.
    (17) If you are a tank or NTV vessel owner, and taking into 
consideration the current regulations for VRPs for tank and NTV vessels 
in 33 CFR part 155, what would you specifically need to do to your 
current VRP to comply with the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill 
planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion, which 
includes the surrounding areas, as described in the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2022? What additional costs would be incurred 
beyond the existing VRP regulations or under the national planning 
criteria in 33 CFR part 155?
    (18) If you are a small entity (small business, small organization, 
or small governmental jurisdiction) that owns tank or NTV vessels, how 
would the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or 
the adoption of a Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas 
impact your business? Please be specific and describe any positive 
(beneficial) or negative (costs) impacts this would have on your 
business or organization.
    (19) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, would adoption of 
the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a 
Western Alaska subregion affect your insurance costs and liability 
coverage? If so, please be specific and describe any economic impacts 
this may have.
    (20) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, if the planning 
criteria required in a subregion were more stringent than that of the 
Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria, what would be the economic 
impact (costs and benefits, if any) of this difference on your 
business? Please be specific and describe in detail the nature of this 
difference on your business.
    (21) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, would you need to 
modify your current response plan, through contract or other means, to 
ensure the availability of an OSRO to respond to a shoreline oil spill 
in the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska subregion, as described in 
the CGAA 2022? Please be specific in your response and state why you 
believe this may or may not be necessary.
    (22) As a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, what would it cost 
to develop and submit a new VRP that contains APC as defined in 33 CFR 
sections155.1065 and 155.5067 for the Western Alaska oil spill planning 
criteria or planning criteria for a Western Alaska subregion and the 
surrounding areas?
    (23) If you are a Tribal government, how would the adoption of the 
Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western 
Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas impact your government? 
Please describe in detail the positive (beneficial) or negative 
economic and environmental impacts (costs) this would have on your 
government.
    (24) If you are an OSRO, how would the adoption of the Western 
Alaska oil spill planning criteria or the adoption of a Western Alaska 
subregion affect your capability to respond to an oil spill in these 
areas or subregion? What capital costs would you incur as an OSRO to 
meet the planning criteria in these areas or subregion as described in 
the CGAA 2022? Please include the time it would take for additional 
recordkeeping, if applicable, and the costs associated with any 
paperwork.
    (25) As an OSRO, do you currently have adequate resources (salvage 
and firefighting equipment, lightering, and so on) and capabilities to 
respond to an oil spill in the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska 
subregion as described in the CGAA 2022? With your current resources 
and capabilities, would you be able to respond to an average most 
probable discharge, a maximum most probable discharge, or a worst-case 
discharge of oil, as defined in 33 CFR part 155, in these areas? If 
not, please describe in detail what resources you would need to obtain 
or capabilities you would need to develop to respond to an oil spill in 
these areas, and the costs associated with these changes.
    (26) As an OSRO, would you be able to respond to a discharge of oil 
with the adoption of the Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or 
Western Alaska subregion and the surrounding areas in the response 
times given in 33 CFR part 155? If not, please describe in detail why 
these response times would not be achievable in these areas, and what 
would be the appropriate response times you think would be achievable 
in these areas. Would pre-positioning of oil spill response resources 
be necessary for the Western Alaska area or Western Alaska subregion as 
described in the

[[Page 84161]]

CGAA 2022? What would be the additional costs to your business/
organization for changes in the response times in these areas?
    (27) Please specify, as a tank or NTV vessel owner or operator, an 
OSRO, or any other party that may be affected by the adoption of the 
Western Alaska oil spill planning criteria or a Western Alaska 
subregion and the surrounding areas, please describe in detail any 
other economic impacts, not stated previously, that this change may 
have on your business beyond the current requirements listed in 33 CFR 
part 1.
    (28) Are there any other positive or negative environmental impacts 
from this potential action? If so, please provide detail as to how and 
what would be impacted. To the degree possible, please provide the 
data, impact assessments, and other pertinent background information 
necessary to understand and reproduce your results.

    Dated: November 28, 2023.
D.S. Tulis,
Director, Emergency Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2023-26533 Filed 12-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.